Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Notices 36877

days after the date of publication of

these results. The Department will issue

the final results of this changed

circumstances review, which will

include the results of its analysis of any

issues raised in any such written

comments, no later than 270 days after

the date on which this review was

initiated, or within 45 days if all parties

agree to our preliminary results.

This notice is in accordance with

section 751(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(b)), and 19 CFR 351.216, 351.221,

and 351.222.

Dated: June 30, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18112 Filed 7–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–401–040]

Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the petitioners, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping finding on stainless

steel plate from Sweden. The review

covers two manufacturers/exporters of

the subject merchandise to the United

States and the period June 1, 1996

through May 31, 1997. We preliminarily

determine that sales have been made

below normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties based on the

difference between export price (‘‘EP’’)

and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties which submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the argument

(no longer than five pages, including

footnotes).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Heather Osborne or John Kugelman,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–3019 (Osborne), 482–0649

(Kugelman).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act) are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are

references to the provisions codified at

19 CFR Part 351 (62 FR 27296, May 19,

1997).

Background

The Department of the Treasury

published an antidumping finding on

stainless steel plate from Sweden on

June 8, 1973 (38 FR 15079). The

Department of Commerce published a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity To Request

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping finding for the 1996/1997

review period on June 11, 1997 (62 FR

31786). On June 28, 1997, the

petitioners, Allegheny Ludlum Steel

Corp., G.O. Carlson, Inc., and

Washington Steel Corporation filed a

request for review of Uddeholms AB

(Uddeholm) and Avesta Sheffield AB

(Avesta). We initiated the review on

August 1, 1997 (62 FR 41339).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of stainless steel plate which

is commonly used in scientific and

industrial equipment because of its

resistance to staining, rusting and

pitting. Stainless steel plate is classified

under Harmonized Tariff schedule of

the United States (HTSUS) item

numbers 7219.11.00.00, 7219.12.00.05,

1209.12.00.15, 7219.12.00.45,

7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70,

7219.12.00.80, 8219.21.00.05,

7219.21.00.50, 7219.22.00.05,

7219.22.00.10, 7219.22.00.30,

7219.22.00.60, 7219.31.00.10,

7219.31.00.50, 7220.11.00.00,

7222.30.00.00, and 7228.40.00.00.

Although the subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes,

the written description of the

merchandise is dispositive.

On November 21, 1997, Avesta and

Avesta Sheffield NAD, Inc. requested

clarification to determine whether

stainless steel slabs that are

manufactured in Great Britain and

rolled into hot bands in Sweden are

within the scope of the antidumping

finding. On December 22, 1997, the

Department determined that British

slabs rolled into hot bands in Sweden

are within the scope of the finding. The

review covers the period June 1, 1996

through May 31, 1997. The Department

is conducting this review in accordance

within section 751 of the Act, as

amended.

The Department may extend the

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

365 days. (See 19 C.F.R. 351.2139(g)(2).)

On February 24, 1998, the Department

extended the time limit for these

preliminary results to June 30, 1998. See

Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden;

Extension of Time Limits for

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (63 FR 10590, March 4, 1998).

United States Price (USP)

In calculating USP, the Department

treated sales as constructed export price

(CEP) sales, as defined in section 772(b)

of the Act, because the merchandise was

first sold to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers,

before or after importation, by an

affiliated seller in the United states.

There were no export price sales during

the period of review.

We based CEP on the delivered price

to unaffiliated customers in the United

States. We made adjustments, where

applicable, for ocean freight, U.S. inland

freight, U.S. brokerage and handling

expenses, U.S. customs duties, early

payment discounts, and rebates. In

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the

Act, we made deductions for warranty

expenses, royalties, slitting and cutting

expenses, credit expenses, and indirect

selling expenses associated with

economic activity in the United States.

With respect to merchandise to which

value was added in the United States by

Avesta prior to sale to unaffiliated

customers, we deducted the cost of

further manufacturing in accordance

with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. To

arrive at the CEP, the gross unit price

was further reduced for both Avesta and

Uddeholm by an amount for profit

pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

were sufficient sales of stainless steel

plate in the home market (HM) to serve

as a viable basis for calculating NV, we

compared the volume of home market

sales of subject merchandise to the

volume of subject merchandise sold in

the United States, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Avesta’s

aggregate volume of HM sales of the
36878 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Notices

foreign like product was greater than

five percent of its respective aggregate

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise. Therefore, for Avesta, we

have based NV on HM sales.

Uddeholm’s aggregate volume of HM

sales, on the other hand, was less than

five percent of its U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise. Therefore, we did

not base NV for Uddeholm in its HM

sales. Rather, because Canada

constituted Uddeholm’s largest thirdcountry market, we based NV for

Uddeholm on sales to that market.

Avesta made HM sales to both

affiliated and unaffiliated distributors

during the period of review. We

included sales to affiliated distributors

when we determined those sales to be

at arms-length (i.e., at average prices

that were 99.5 percent of more of prices

to unaffiliated distributors). When

prices to an affiliated distributor were,

on average, less than 99.5 percent of the

price to unaffiliated distributors, we

excluded those sales to affiliated

distributors from our calculation of NV.

The Department’s current policy is to

consider transactions between affiliated

parties as arm’s-length if the prices to

affiliated purchasers are on average at

least 99.5 percent of the prices charged

to unaffiliated purchasers. See e.g.,

Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from

France: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review (63 FR

30185, June 3, 1998).

For Avesta we made adjustments to

NV for HM inland freight, quantity

discounts, distributor discounts, credit

expenses, and warranties.

For Uddeholm we made adjustments

to NV for international freight, thirdcountry inland freight, third-country

inland insurance, third-country customs

duties, early payment discounts,

warehousing expenses, and credit

expenses.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section 773(a)(7)

of the Act, to the extent practicable, we

determine NV based on sales in the

comparison market at the same level of

trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP

transaction. The NV LOT is that of the

starting price sales in the comparison

market or, when NV is based on CV, that

of the sales from which we derive

selling, general, and administrative

(SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP

sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of

the starting-price sale, which is usually

from exporter to importer. For CEP

sales, it is the level of the constructed

sale from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than EP or CEP

sales, we examine the stages in the

marketing process and selling functions

along with the chain of distribution

between the producer and the

unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make a

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP

sales, if the NV level is more remote

from the factory than the CEP level and

there is no basis for determining

whether the difference in the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP

offset provision). See Notice of Final

Determination of sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Cut-to Length Carbon

Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR

61731 (November 19, 1997).

We requested information concerning

the selling functions associated with

each phase of marketing, or the

equivalent, in each of Uddeholm’s and

Avesta’s markets. For Avesta, we

determined that one LOT existed in the

home market. Avesta offered the same

selling terms and conditions, and

provided the same level of marketing

assistance, customer service, and

technical service to all of its home

market customers. We also determined

that one LOT exists for Uddeholm’s

third-country sales. Uddeholm offered

the same level of inventory

maintenance. technical advice, and

after-sale servicing to all of its Canadian

customers.

To determine whether Avesta and

Uddeholm’s CEP and NV sales were at

the same LOT, we reviewed information

submitted in their questionnaire

responses regarding selling functions

and marketing processes associated with

both categories of sales.

The U.S. subsidiaries of both

Uddeholm and Avesta performed selling

functions such as inventory

maintenance, after-sales servicing,

technical advice, advertising, freight

and delivery arrangement, and

warranties. Although Avesta’s actual

sales in the home market and

Uddeholm’s actual sales in Canada were

made at a marketing stage similar to that

in the United States, and entailed

essentially the same functions as

described above, our comparison of

LOTs does not include these selling

functions because, as explained above,

we are using the CEP methodology in

making price comparisons. Thus, in

determining the LOT for the U.S. sales,

we only considered the selling activities

reflected in the price after making the

appropriate adjustments under section

772(d) of the Act. (Sec, e.g., Certain

Stainless Wire Rods from France: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (61 FR 47874,

September 11, 1996.)

Based on a comparison of the home

market (or third-country market) and

this CEP LOT, we find significantly

different selling functions for both

Avesta and Uddeholm. Avesta’s and

Uddeholm’s CEP sales involve no sales

administration beyond the processing of

incoming production orders, no forward

warehousing, no marketing calls to

customers, no advertising or sales

promotion, and no technical assistance

or after-sale warranty expenses. We

therefore determine that Avesta’s and

Uddeholm’s CEP sales are at different

LOTs than their respective home market

or third-country sales.

As stated above, section 773(a)(7)(B)

of the Act directs us to make an

adjustment for differences in LOTs

where such differences affect price

comparability. However, because there

is only a single LOT in the HM or third

country market, we were unable to

determine from information on the

record whether differences in LOTs

affected price comparability, Therefore,

we did not make a LOT adjustment for

Avesta and Uddeholm. Next, we

examined whether a CEP offset is

warranted in this case for Avesta and

Uddeholm. As indicated above, in

accordance with Section 773(a)(7)(B) of

the Act, a CEP offset is warranted where

NV is established at a LOT which

constitutes a more advanced stage of

distribution (or the equivalent) than the

LOT or the CEP sale and the data

available does not provide an

appropriate basis to determine a LOT

adjustment. We made a CEP offset

pursuant to Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the

Act because (1) we have determined that

Avesta’s and Uddeholm’s respective

home market or third-country LOT is

different from the CEP LOT, but the data

necessary to calculate the LOT

adjustment is unavailable, and (2) for

each company, NV has been established

at a LOT which constitutes a more

advanced state of distribution (or the

equivalent) than its CEP LOT.

Sales Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

stainless steel plate in the United States

were made at less than NV, we

compared USP to the NV, as described

in the ‘‘United States Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.

In accordance with section 777(A) of the

Act, we calculated monthly weighted-
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Notices 36879

average prices for NV and compared

these to individual U.S. transactions.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

June 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997:

Avesta .........................................21.84 percent

Uddeholm ...................................11.17 percent

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice and any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 37

days after the date of publication, or the

first working day thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs and/or

written comments no later than 30 days

after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 35 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish the final results of this

administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments or at a hearing, within 120

days after the publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Because the inability to link sales with

specific entries prevents calculation of

duties on an entry-by-entry basis, we

have calculated an importer-specific ad

valorem assessment rate for the

merchandise based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total entered

value of the sales used to calculate these

duties. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

Customs. The final results of this review

shall be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of stainless steel plate from Sweden

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

these administrative reviews, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) the cash deposit rate for reviewed

firms will be the rate established in the

final results of administrative review,

except if the rate is less than 0.50

percent, and therefore, de minimis

within the meaning of 19 CFR 353.106,

in which case the cash deposit rate will

be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by

manufacturers or exporters not covered

in this review but covered in the

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation or a previous review, the

cash deposit will continue to be the

most recent rate published in the final

determination or final results for which

the manufacturer or exporter received a

company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review, or

the original investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the

final results of these reviews, or the

LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a

firm covered in this or any previous

review or the original fair value

investigation, the cash deposit rate will

be 4.46%.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.402(f) to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping

duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during these review

periods. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This determination is issued in

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and

777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 30, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18113 Filed 7–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instruments

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301), we invite comments on the

question of whether instruments of

equivalent scientific value, for the

purposes for which the instruments

shown below are intended to be used,

are being manufactured in the United

States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and

be filed within 20 days with the

Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Applications may be

examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00

P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 98–004R. Applicant:

University of California at Los Angeles,

Plasma Physics Laboratory, 405 Hilgard

Avenue, P.O. Box 951547, Los Angeles,

CA 90095–1547. Instrument: YAG

Pumped Dye Laser. Manufacturer:

Spectron Laser Systems, United

Kingdom. Intended Use: Original notice

of this resubmitted application was

published in the Federal Register of

February 18, 1998.

Docket Number: 98–032. Applicant:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Center for Cancer Research, 77

Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA

02139. Instrument: Fish Tank System.

Manufacturer: Klaus-Jurgen Schwarz,

Germany. Intended Use: The instrument

will be used for the study of the early

development of the zebrafish embryo in

order to identify genes that are required

for a fish egg to develop normally into

a perfect living fish embryo and

ultimately into an adult fish. It is

expected that the genes identified will

help in understanding what goes wrong

in human development that can lead to

birth defects. Application accepted by

Commissioner of Customs: June 19,

1998.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 98–18109 Filed 7–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Michigan, Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 98–024. Applicant:

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

48109–2150. Instrument: (3) Sensor

Sets, Model ODIN 4. Manufacturer:

A.D.C. GmbH, Germany. Intended Use: